Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (30004)	9/28/2001 9:21:59 AM
From: Poet	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Hi Karen, Great post on the etymology of 'cockpit". Did the man you quote PM you the info? I always wonder how many people lurk and wish they'd post. Also, I so agree with yet another elegantly-phrased post you made: We should disapprove of all terrorism but only intrude on sovereign countries when their terrorists are a direct and serious threat to us. The time has come for the US to focus its resources on security within its own borders.

To: Lane3 who wrote (30004)	9/28/2001 1:13:15 PM
From: MulhollandDrive	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

So we shouldn't be going after terrorists for "destruction" those who target Americans abroad? USS Cole? Khobar Towers? American Embassies in Africa? Pan Am 100? Bin Laden has been implicated in all but one, but we have stated he and his followers have not operated autonomously, rather as a network. So what other "supporting" terrorist groups do we target? And what about the sponsoring states? I heard a former British intelligence officer say the other day that you could look up and go to "headquarters" of several known terrorist organizations in downtown Damascus. I do agree with you that our emphasis should be on our protection within our borders. But we have declared a "War on Terrorism" maybe we should define exactly which terrorist groups are on our hit list.